Transcript The University of Sheffield: PowerPoint template

Which type of sports club
offers the best option for
growing participation?
• Geoff Nichols and Joanne Padmore:
Sheffield University Management School
• Peter Taylor and David Barrett: Sport
Industry Research Centre
The problem
• NGBs are at the heart of SE strategy to
grow participation
• Sixteen NGBs have agreed to ‘whole sport
plans’
• But can the clubs deliver? How many
clubs can, or want to, grow?
Club clusters by formality
• 2003 report - impression of 2 types
• 34 netball clubs – (2008) – 2 clusters
• High and low professionalization
• 45 clubs in one county – 3 clusters
• Formal / semi-formal / informal
SARA (CCPR) 2009 club survey
• Asked – membership / volunteers / paid
staff / facility ownership / charity : CASC :
clubmark / income / expenditure
• 2,991 clubs - 1,975 provided full financial
data
• 40% had clubmark – compared to 5.7% of
clubs in Engalnd
Sub-sample for analysis
• Removed
• Profit making / informal / other
• Clubs with over 1000 adults or 600 juniors
(37)
• Final sample 2685 clubs
• All ‘non-profit’
Cluster analysis to identify
‘formality’
• Variables – selected for theoretical link to
formality
• CASC, charity, clubmark, owns facility, leases
facility, hires facility, volunteer co-ordinator,
paid staff, 5 or more juniors
Clustering procedure
• two-step cluster procedure
• Schwarz Bayesian Criterion used to identify the
number of clusters
• repeated 4 times - different orders
• Decision on numbers of clusters - consistency
and interpretability of the resultant classifications
• Clusters related to other variables not used
Clusters and growth
• Clusters related to:
• % change in membership over 2 years
• Absolute change in membership – 2 years
Results - clusters
• Group 1 clubs (‘formal’) 50%+
• bigger (average 238 members)
• more likely to have CASC or charity
• own or lease facilities
• paid staff
• and a junior section.
Results - clusters
• Group 2 clubs (‘semi-formal’) 30%
• average size of 113; all had a junior
section
• Unlikely CASC / charity, 53% had
Clubmark.
• not own or lease playing facilities - hired
them.
• less likely to have paid staff
Results - clusters
• Group 3 clubs ( ‘informal’) 20%
• smaller (average 51)
• none had a junior section - few had
Clubmark very unlikely to have CASC or
charity
• hired playing facilities – not own or lease
• less likely to have paid staff
Results – clusters – other
variables
• Group 1 – higher adult fees / employ more
staff / more volunteers / high income and
expenditure
• Group 2 – lower adult fees – higher junior
fees / fewer paid staff and vols. / lower
income and ex.
• Group 3 – low fees / fewer vols. / v.few
paid staff / low income and ex.
Formality and growth
Gp 1
Gp 2
Gp 3
Absolute
change
membership
15
11
3
% Change
membership
12
20
11
Extrapolating to clubs in
England – solution 1
• 6% English clubs – Clubmark in 2009
• 40% of survey sample and sub sample
had Clubmark
• 48% of Group 1 had Clubmark, 53% of
Group 2, none of Group 3
Extrapolating to clubs in
England – solution 1
• Assume - under-representation of nonClubmark clubs in the sample will only
have an impact of reducing the number of
Group 3 clubs in the sample.
• Thus - all the 48% of Group 1, and 53% of
Group 2, clubs with Clubmark, must be
within the 6% of the clubs in England with
Clubmark.
Extrapolating to clubs in
England – solution 1
• 12% of clubs in England must be in either
Group 1 or Group 2. These two Groups
account for approximately 6% of clubs in
England each.
• Group 3 represents approximately 88% of
English clubs.
Extrapolating to clubs in
England – solution 2
• Assumes - under-representation of nonClubmark clubs in the sample is not
different in Groups 1, 2 and 3.
• The distribution of clubs with and without
Clubmark within each group in the sample
is representative of the distribution of clubs
with and without Clubmark in the groups in
all clubs in England.
Extrapolating to clubs in
England – solution 2
• Gives
• Group 1 – 46%
• Group 2 – 23%
• Group 3 – 31%
Comparing solutions
Gp 1 %
Gp 2 %
Gp 3 %
Solution 1 6
6
88
Solution 2 46
23
31
Absolute growth contributed by
cluster as % of total
Gp 1
Gp 2
Gp 3
Solution 1 21
15
63
Solution 2 66
24
9
Alternative scenarios
• If solution 1 – lots of little Group 3 clubs all
grow a little – but contribute 63% of total
growth
• If solution 2 – the big Group 1 clubs
contribute most, followed by the junior
dominated Group 2 clubs
Growth and policy
• Even if the distribution of English clubs is
nearer to solution 1 - policy makers regard
Group 1 and 2 clubs as a ‘safer bet’ contribution to growth per club is greater clubs have demonstrated an adoption of
formality – essential for clubs to compete
and grow in the leisure market.
Type of support needed by
cluster
• Group 1 – to manage facilities / utility
charges / CRB
• Group 2 – access to hired facilities at time
and price / CRB
Acknowledgement
• use of data from the 2009 survey of sports
clubs commissioned by the Sport and
Recreation Alliance.